In New Zealand, a multi-millionaire businessman leads a right-wing governing coalition determined to put economic growth ahead of most environmental and social concerns.
Polls show a majority of voters would reluctantly re-elect this coalition, despite poor approval ratings, perhaps because the weakened opposition is fronted by an unpopular centrist.
Meanwhile, the pro-environment party—fresh off its best ever election result—has just nominated a charismatic co-leader who even rivals begrudgingly admit has talent.
This ought to be fertile soil for Green growth in the polls. And, yet the party has not meaningfully increased its support since winning 11% of the vote in the 2023 election.
It's not like the party has hit a ceiling. It has proven capable of polling at 15% or higher and Chloe Swarbrick has even flirted with the idea of aiming for a Green-led government.
But it looks nowhere close to that dream today. A series of unfortunate events have plagued the party and blocked it from playing a leading role in the opposition.
There have been serious scandals: Elizabeth Kerekere accused of bullying, Golriz Ghahraman convicted of shoplifting, Julie Anne Genter censured for intimidating an MP, and Darleen Tana implicated in migrant exploitation.
But there have also been tragedies: the sudden passing of Efeso Collins and Marama Davidson’s cancer diagnosis. These were nobody's fault but difficult for everyone.
Adding to the upheaval was the long-expected resignation of the very popular James Shaw and, if you want to rub salt in the wound, an embattled Green mayor in Wellington City.
It has been a truly apocalyptic 12-months for the party. A third of its term in opposition has been absorbed by events which would not look out of place in a Lemony Snicket notebook.
Turnaround?
But perhaps the worst is now over. Swarbrick scored a significant win on Thursday night when the party membership voted to support the ousting of Tana from Parliament.
If you haven’t been following the news, a lengthy investigation concluded Tana was aware of alleged migrant exploitation at her husband’s e-bike business — although she denies it.
The MP resigned from caucus (when they were voting to expel her) but refused to leave Parliament, and has been sitting for several months as an independent member.
She has spent much of this time taking legal action against the party, disparaging its leadership, and sometimes relying on the Act Party to cast her proxy vote in Parliament.
Swarbrick has had to cope with this challenge almost solo, although Davidson has been forced to help fend off Tana’s attacks in between cancer treatments.
To kick the rogue MP out of Parliament and reclaim her seat, the Green Party has been forced to rely on a waka-jumping rule it has furiously opposed for years.
Swarbrick needed 75% of grassroots party members to support her plan to abandon the party's principled position in favor of a more ‘realpolitik’ approach to Parliamentary politics.
It was a risky gamble but it paid off. The new co-leader secured unanimous backing during a special general meeting on Thursday night, and immediately began the waka-jump process.
She said there was “robust” debate and not all members were wholeheartedly behind the idea. However, some were swayed by the support of former co-leader Metiria Turei.
This has been a trial under fire for Swarbrick but she comes out of it looking stronger. She has proven herself as co-leader and can now focus her considerable talents on winning votes.
Rental costs keep on rising, young people are losing their jobs, and offshore investors are gearing up to do seabed mining and tap new fossil fuel wells. Plenty to talk about!
After a lost year, it is time for the Greens to take a leaf from Christopher Luxon’s book and get the party back on track.
154 Comments
The Greens will never be much more than a 10% party as long as they focus on 'identity' issues of race and gender.
Darleen Tana will be replaced by the next person on The List:
Benjamin Doyle, 32, the party’s Hamilton West candidate at the last election.
Doyle (who uses the pronouns 'they/them') describes themself as: “a pāpā, a teacher, a researcher, and a community organiser. I am also proudly takatāpui (gay) and whaikaha (strong). For nearly ten years, I have taught and led in secondary schools in both Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland and Kirikiriroa Hamilton with a focus on rangatahi achieving equitable educational outcomes. I currently work as a university researcher with a focus on education, well-being and anti-racist pedagogy. My priorities:
Advocate for greater investment in efficient, accessible and carbon-neutral regional public transport.
Protect and restore natural habitats to regenerate biodiversity and increase climate resilience.
Enable people in our city to meet their daily living needs with our guaranteed minimum income policy.”
Nothing wrong with all that ... except that maybe the Greens need someone who will emphasise the things that unite the poorer half of struggling Kiwis in their fight for economic justice, instead of using words that tend to divide people into separate silos.
Might I suggest, JohnTrz, that if you believe the Green Party is about 'identity' issues of race and gender, then you actually know very little of their policies. I expect you rely solely on media's woeful headlines to understand what their policies actually are.
Case in point, in the last election the Green Party had their entire budget scrutinized and signed off by economists. The National Party did not. Further, the National Party refused to release how they'd come up with their budget numbers. And of course now we see they were rubbish and their promises about 'balanced budgets' and 'getting the books back in balance' was a load of utter crap.
The greens are largely irrelevant losers. Propped up currently by labours hopelessness with nowhere for those voters to go, the default option is the greens. They have spent the last term either dropping dead, being convicted of stealing, migrant exploitation and are responsible for the shambles which is Wellington city, and seem be be destined for forced removal from there due to their total incompetence. Seems a lot of their support comes from the luvvies in Wellington, but I expect that will drop off once the full effect of their ‘management’ of the city by the Green ‘mayor’ becomes clear. They are a laughing stock.
That was preceded by the white cis male and the cry baby insults. Those sort of intemperate outbursts are indicative of a vexatious and vindictive culture existing amongst the Greens and the attack to oust Shaw is scarcely dissimilar. It is not hard to wonder in turn, whether such pressures and difficulties were contributive to the acknowledged mental problems of the shop lifter.
Case in point, in the last election the Green Party had their entire budget scrutinized and signed off by economists.
They absolutely did not lol. They had economists check their working. They did not check their assumptions. This annoyed me at the time because the media incorrectly reported what you have just parroted. No one checked if their assumed capital flight from wealth tax was reasonable for example.
And sorry, what do you mean the nats didn't have their numbers scrutinized? The media spent half the campaign attacking the work the Nats got Castalia to do on their foreign buyer tax plan lol.
My opinions are formed by watching question time - Chloe and the rest are a joke, all the questions are crammed with woke ideologies and are extremely divisive. A lot of the policy isn't bad, however to let these idiots get anywhere near power is a massive backward step for the country.
I appreciate your point, which is that those 50% won't look past the "they/them", "gay", and scary Te Reo words to see "equitable educational outcomes", "education", "well-being", "investment", "resilience", and "guaranteed minimum income".
Having said that, even your comment chooses to focus on the "silos". Why couldn't you have looked past "race and gender", which are mentioned - if I'm being generous and including sexuality - maybe 5 times?
The Greens have a tough task to keep mopping up the left of Labour while still appearing centrist enough to rope in that "poorer half". If you're genuinely compelled by Doyle's profile, why not swing in behind repeating the broader appeal rather than also cherry-picking the identity stuff?
I know the guy professionally - he is married (or at least has a long term partner) to a woman, has a child, and owns a house in a nice suburb in Hamilton. He's not as unique as the identity presented, and honestly I think he would benefit from actually avoiding those hang ups and focusing on what sound like good principles with regards to the environment.
@ Solard - Legalize drugs to reduce its use? That makes about as much sense as legalizing pedophilia to "reduce its risks to children". You & the Green party clearly do not understand at all the idea of reducing risk. Exactly why they will never get anywhere near governing or co governing. You reduce the risk of something harmful to society by completly removing access to it, not the other way around.
I see you believe in the fairy tale of prohibition. We absolutely cannot control or remove access to illegal drugs, but treating drug addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal issue is far more productive.
Not to mention the fact we are basically creating a lucrative and highly profitable industry for gangs to control.
@ Polish - I see you believe in the fairy tale of everything is permitted.
Apply your logic to anything else we deem harmful to society and you will find it is deeply flawed as well as deeply disturbing.
"We absolutely cannot control or remove pedophiles or pedophilia type behaviour & material, but treating pedophiles & pedophilia as a "health issue" rather than a criminal issue is far more productive.
Not to mention the fact we are basically creating a lucrative and highly profitable industry for the elites to control. Epstein island comes to mind.
Your logic towards harmful material & harmful behaviors does not make any logical sense. Switch out the word pedophile with rap-ist, or any other morally corrupt behaviour and still it continues to make no sense. Even the very thought of attempting to justify vile behaviour or destructive substances as legal "because otherwise gangs & other morally corrupt people are just going to do it anyway" is perverse. Try again.
Hilarious. Legalising drugs doesnt reduce usage, it increases it. Along with crime. See Portland's unfortunate flirtation with legalising drugs.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-28/oregon-drug-decriminalisation-ju…
Auckland and Wellington streets are bad enough now, imagine if they could all sit around doing drugs in public like they do in America.
@ KW - "Legalising drugs doesnt reduce usage, it increases it"
It's logic like this that could easily justify the need for a basic IQ test before being allowed to vote.
By your logic legalizing criminal activity and behaviour actually decreases crime. Your not one of those Labour nut jobs who actually advocate in the removal of the justice system by any chance? Keeping more people out of prisons actually reduces crime rates too I suppose you think?
Its the justification of the behaviour usually by the guilty that's perverse. I bet pedophiles could find a way to convince people like you that legalizing pedophilia would somehow reduce child sexual abuse.
Suppose you also think we can change the weather if we all just pay more taxes too. People who are sad about the weather in 30 years should all glue their hands to main highways as a solution too right?
Its crazy to think that there are actually some people that still defy basic common sense in favour for actively pushing perverse & corrupt propoganda that favours their sick perversion, and anyone that disagrees is the crazy conspiracy theorist. "Don't get in my way of moral bankruptcy" right. If you actually believe that giving easier access to drugs will make a safer community, and in any way beneficial to society, then you are more stupid than I thought. Such people should never be allowed near the ballot boxes, let alone near politics in general. Help their stoner mates commit crimes & keep out of jail. The Labour Utopia - No thanks. I support consequences for bad actions.
@ KW - My humble apologies KW, I just realized I had totally mis read your statement. Sounds as though we are singing from the same tune book that the idea to even justify legalizing criminal behavior or activities would somehow reduce crime or the activity is just ridiculous one.
It's nice to know common sense isn't completely forgotten. So used to dealing with those Labour ideals that think they can reduce crime rates & prison population by simply just not punishing people for crimes, that I just jumped the gun. I will read more carefully next time. Thanks 🙏
What... exactly like Milton Friedman? https://www.businessinsider.com/milton-friedman-drugs-legal-2012-7?op=1
Yet they still poll significantly well. Admittedly at the expense of Labour presently. They have the advantage of a percentage of the electorate that will vote Green willy nilly because of the international profile of the Green environmental activity, as if they were voting for Greenpeace. That should convey a message but it doesn’t seem to. Instead the NZ version has been hijacked by the extremism of the radical left and the birds of the feather that have flocked together here have become nothing more than angry birdbrains.
Chloe will never discuss or debate the greens' very low threshold wealth tax (includes the family home) which if enacted would shut down most small businesses, our biggest employer. Is it that the green party is that ideological, or that they simply do not grasp economics?
More worrying, if you read their manifesto, is the power intended to be given to the IRD to enter your property to audit and/or seek out assets that would attract a wealth tax. That is a violation of a cornerstone of our law that precludes the Crown from intervening in the lawfully owned property of its citizens, dating back to the Magna Carta. To justify this the Greens consider this to simply be the same as the government’s authority to investigate benefit fraud for example. That contention is profoundly dangerous. There is a vast difference between stealing from the public purse and that of law abiding citizens running their household who would thus be being considered as potential criminals.
Entirely different. Have you not thought why for example search warrants have to be handled by NZ’s judiciary. Of course there is entry as with bailiffs and other government authorities but strictly under a court order identifying the relative offending and/or a bankruptcy etc. Not an open slather public ticket and not for legitimately owned property. Same p as the police, they have to go to court to seize assets proven to have been the proceeds crime, such as with the gangs.
Agree. People that think that by voting Green they will save the environment really need their head read. Voting Green actually means much higher taxes, less services, poor productivity, dumb children, men competing in woman’s sports, made up languages and eventually sitting in the dark flat broke - not smelling very nice.
….because a lot of the time it is better to just lay it out in its most simple terms so any average Joe can interpret their idiocy as easily as possible. The above is what they are about, and is clearly on show as a result of them simply trying to ‘manage’ on city.
I scrolled to the bottom of the article to see which green member wrote this,and concluded it was Interest,s own Dan Brunskill..(Duly noted)
As for Chloe fighting all these fires almost SOLO wow.. she is so brave.
Perhaps she could consult with Luxon ,Seymore.Peters ,and even Hipkins to see how they manage..
The point of piece is that the Green Party needs to get their act together! It’s probably the worst performing party in Parliament despite having the most obvious opportunity.
If you wanna read something more right-friendly try my opinion about Act’s regulation ministry:
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/129032/david-seymour-wants-new…
Ok.Well if the Greens want to get their act together ..maybe the article should focus more on their candidate selection. Perhaps return to the traditional genuine enviomental types.Not DEI and associated nut jobs.. although their female candidates seem to giving them the most grief.(They had a couple of "reasonable "male members a few years back but sacked them for more the Mendez/Kerekere types)
Tana's replacement also looks pretty "wacky"..
Marama,s absence should be considered good for the Greens as if she was front and center then it would be more of the Racist /socialist tripe..
They seem to be something of a toxic matriarchy.
I've made no secret of my loathing of the Greens, principally because they are communists masquarading as environmentalists. They have hi-jacked the true spirit of "green" party and are instead intent on the redistribution of wealth (the iintersection on these two is ever shrinking).
The Greens need to go back to their roots, bring in some genuine environmentalists with policies to improve and protect biodiversity. If not, change the name.
The amount of green technologies that have got firmly established in NZ in the last 7 years suggests you are woefully out of touch. And I thank them for bike lanes we use today that didn't exist 7 years ago, every single day.
Would that have happened under the simian Brown and the other Coalition petrol heads?
I do thank him for putting his name on an idea, and the work already done, that came from inside the Ministry of Tourism. You know, those worthless public servants everyone goes on about. (He knew about it because he was the Minister of Tourism at the time). I also thank the local councils & charities that got behind it and made it happen. Shame nobody thought his flag project was a good idea (also a Ministry of Tourism idea.)
It’s probably the worst performing party in Parliament
Dan, they are not the worst performing party in Parliament, they are the worst performing Party. Look what Wellington has become.
I don't hold any hope on the Greens, they've lost from the beginning. owever, I do hope Labour got themselves together, get them some capable MPs, and some sensible but important policies. We need a good Labor Party.
"And there's been a big swing to The Silly Party... It all went pretty much as expected, except The Silly Party won"
You sound like a typical labour supporter blaming the last national govt from how long was it now JA would say 5 yrs ago 6? In that case look at how well NZ has done for being the last country settled in the world wether Maori or European. Compared to the vast majority of countries we are a hell of a lot better off and have freedoms alot of countries would love. Thanks National if what you say is true
For the majority of our political history , roughly 2 thirds of the time , we've had conservative governments ... and overall we have grown considerably as a nation in wealth and as a culture...
... the 6 years of Ardern/Hipkins was an outlier as governments go , for sheer stupidity of their ideals , and how they disrupted our economy & social cohesion ....
As bad as the Muldoon government was , their legacy is big hydro lakes ... Ardern's legacy is big debt with nothing to show for it ....
JFoe the point being that a person now in their 30s has left home finally schooled paying their way paying taxes and has hopefully a bit of maturity and a view of the world compared to a 16 yr old who is wondering wether they are a boy or girl or a cat or what part of the body they are going to pierce.
Definition of 'Wise': having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgement. The young can be very bright, imaginative and creative but so can a subset of the old. However wisdom requires experience and experience accumulates with age.
I'd apply this to Jacinda - intelligent and kind but simply not wise and with minimal wise colleagues. So she made genuinely heartfelt promises and failed to deliver. Maybe we should invite her back about twenty years from now.
Only tax payers vote. That's dramatically right wing but with some precedence in ancient Athens and Rome. Lets exclude GST because that would allow almost everyone including five year olds a vote. If NZ only permitted voting by those who paid income tax above a certain low threshold (say the tax paid for someone living exclusively on Super) then we would exclude all teachers, all unemployed, most retirees unless they were still working, mothers on maternity leave, those on sickness benefit. It would work although be rather unfair to those who are bright, active but too handicapped to hold down a job. The more I consider it the better it sounds.
NZ not long ago voted out a Government who spent billions more, borrowed billions more, taxed billions more, massively increased the size of the public sector, all as a “kinder” Government. A Government who put social concerns ahead of the economy. And how did that go? Let’s recap. Metrics in Health, Law and Order, Transport, Housing and Education all got significantly worse. Imagine spending, borrowing and taxing exponentially more and having outcomes fall through the floor. Not to mention insane inflation and the dramatic increase in racial division. Putting social concerns ahead of the economy made NZ a worse place to live. Swarbrick and her Party should hang their heads in shame supporting that dross and that is their legacy. These people are inept, and just go into Parliament to pick up a salary that they could never command in the private sector.
... quite ironically , if a government wants to be " kinder " , to reduce child poverty , reduce crime rates & so forth , they need to do the exact opposite of the Ardern-Hipkins government : they need to decentralise power from Wellington , increase competition , allow people to make their own decisions ... strip away the unnecessary entitlements & packages such as WFF & accomodation supplements ... a good old fashioned dose of " tough love " ...
In Vino Veritas: "NZ not long ago voted out a Government who spent billions more, borrowed billions more,...."
... only to be replaced by a government that is doing the same thing.
That's what you meant, right?
Interesting Chris. When you are given a position where your expenses exceed your income, what exactly are you supposed to do? Other than slash expenditure that affects the most disadvantaged the worst. You do realise that the last two Labour Governments have left incoming National Governments with structural deficits? I guess the difference between the two Governments is that whilst National are borrowing, they will achieve better outcomes in the portfolios I mentioned above. Like they did under Key.
"a series of unfortunate events" You make it sound as if they arent thieves, migrant exploiters, bullies and incompetent sexist/racists. This is what they are - When people tell you and show you what they are through their behaviour and words you should believe them.
Anyone who supports the greens supports the above behaviour.
Consider the relaive size of the parties - The Greens per capitia most disfunctional party in NZ politics. No place telling anyone how to live period - See Wellington city council as the example of what them in government would look like.
Unfindell was a school student when what you are refering to occured and in my opinion Andrew bayley should have been fired.
What does this have to do with the Green party who the article and comment is about?
He wasn’t stealing from NZ businesses, exploiting migrants while refusing to leave collecting taxpayer funded salary (knowing there is no way someone in the private sector would pay them anything close to their taxpayer funded salary) or spouting racist and sexist comments about a particular group of people being the source for all the worlds violence?
Not entirely irrelevant. It is not always the Greens. During particularly the last term of Key’s government some fairly unacceptable behaviour and arrogance began to percolate through. That culminated in the years post 2017 which identified some individuals who frankly were neither appropriate nor of sufficient integrity to sit in parliament. Mr Luxon appears to have corralled these aspects but he and his department would be prudent to quash emphatically any hint of such behaviour re-emerging because it doesn’t fail to escalate.
The partisan left is so toxic they will always excuse the bad behaviour of there own and hit the whatttaboout the national parties couple of negative head lines.
i dont think Andrew is fit for politics and should have been fired. Repeating what i have said above. Will you say the same about Marama’s racist sexist comments? Or do you support that kind of partisan divisiveness?
This is a political spin piece funded by the Greens, surely.
"A sequence of unfortunate events" - thievery, bullying, and migrant exploitation.
If that was in any other political party, knives would be out and people would howl for blood. Because it's the Greens we are supposed to feel sorry for all the rotten apples in the cart. What an absolute joke.
Nktokyo, when I read, "thievery, bullying, and migrant exploitation", I immediately thought you were referring to the National Party which has a long and scandalous track record in such behavior. I guess when it comes from another party it is more news worthy. Fair enough.
If the right was involved with this the leftie media would be all over it and not able to talk about anything else for months. These disgusting episodes of crime and exploitation have rather been treated as business as usual type issues for the greens (by the media), which it appears is how they treat them too. They seem more concerned that they have been caught than anything else.
.... as an aside , and quite unrelated , but why did the MSM , TV1 particularly , go ape shit crazy over Chris Luxon for making a $ 180 000 tax free profit when he sold his Wellington apartment ... but it was total science when Jacinda Ardern ( who killed off the CGT , " not on my watch " ) sold her house and pocketed a $ 300 000 tax free gain ...
I think the issue is Luxon comes in, reduces the Brightline test to 2 years, and voila his apartment sale is no longer captured in the Brightline Test. He bought the apartment in 2020 so would've been subject to the 5 year test.
Would you be as forgiving for Ardern if these series of events happened for her Pt Chev sale?
From Bill English:
"He reflects on his early years in Parliament (he was elected in 1990) and the depth of the grim recessionary period in New Zealand history that started in the economic turmoil of the 1970s and culminated during National’s term in the 1990s. .... When I hear people talking about crises today ... by the standard of that time, (this is) not a crisis.... it’s easy to advocate for change if you don’t have to look into the eyes of those facing the consequences"
I hear people talking about crises today
He's right, but who started the 'cost of living crisis' rhetoric for example - it wasn't the everyday person, they just repeated the phrase from the media. Then it was inflation and high interest rates that were the boogie men (never the debt, or FIRE economy). Their actions have been harmful, masking problems such as high land and housing costs. Much easier to blame *anything* but our population growth and stupid tax setting for causing that (and lower wages which apparently is an unquestioned good thing in the 'war' against inflation).
The politicians have let the country down, the media have let them with their thirst for controlling the narrative rather than reporting and questioning.
Thankfully we have the comments section here where a variety of views can be aired and tested.
"In New Zealand, a multi-millionaire businessman leads a right-wing governing coalition determined to put economic growth ahead of most environmental and social concerns."
Statements such as this make economists cringe.
NZ could quite happily get economic growth trucking along nicely by investing in electrifying our energy systems, thereby reducing our over-reliance on fossil fuels and punching a hole in our ongoing trade deficits, and maybe even reversing the land use issues that see trees planted rather than the high value food produced that the world will quite happily pay top dollar for.
In short, economic growth can be achieved by putting the environment & social concerns first.
The real problem, as Dan is perhaps inferring, are the people that vote for a "right-wing governing coalition determined to put economic growth ahead of most environmental and social concerns."
people that vote for a "right-wing governing coalition determined to put economic growth ahead of most environmental and social concerns."
I don't know why people voted for them, but I think it's a stretch to think it was all about 'economic growth' - what everyday person wins from that these days?
If I was to guess, the swing voters would have been more likely a voting against the incumbents rather than for the new government. And the last Labour government had plenty of things not to like about it stacked up over the last six years (without even considering economic growth, environment and social concerns). With Jacinda leaving it had pretty much put up the white flag itself anyway.
Murray Falconer, "I don't know why people voted for them ..."
Have you read Sun Tzu's, The Art of War?
Sorry, Murray, when people make such statements I begin to question if they have read anything consequential.
(Or put less caustically, understanding why people do what they do is fairly critical. Especially when a sizable voting block, or a market, is involved.)
Hi Chris, lay your mind at rest - I haven't read it and likely haven't read anything on your works of consequence list. Given my lack of reading, I have to fall back on my ability to reason with logic and uncommon sense. Not to mention a large side helping of other people's responses (including yours) to see where I've got it wrong.
I'm very rarely 100% sure of anything (a land tax and lower immigration are pretty close though).
Would you like to fill me in on why my guess isn't as good as yours based on The Art of War?
In New Zealand, a multi-millionaire businessman leads a right-wing governing coalition determined to put economic growth ahead of most environmental and social concerns.
Polls show a majority of voters would reluctantly re-elect this coalition
Right, so voters think the alternative would be worse despite the authors put downs.
series of unfortunate events
In what way, that they got caught?
Swarbrick scored a significant win
Only because they took such a black and white ideological stand in the first instance. They made very hard work of changing their mind to what most people would view as common sense. It highlights the problem, that isn't specific to the Greens, of political parties putting form over function and the media love to point out a change of position as if it is something 'bad', sometimes new information and different circumstances justify a change in position. Not being open to changing one's mind is a far larger problem. I'd be more impressed if migrant exploitation became a 'social concern' of the Greens and they looked for a win there by shutting the door and considering the environmental impacts of our population growth strategy.
Rental costs keep on rising, young people are losing their jobs
Until the media and those with a platform use their privilege wisely, parties like the Greens will continue to get a free pass for not taking due consideration of one of the main drivers of those 'social concerns' - population growth, which is a cousin of the aforementioned 'economic growth'. Wouldn't hurt to run through the logic of how more people helps achieve their environment protection goals either.
Good article, Dan.
Nothing like an article about the Greens to bring the rabid right out in force, frothing at the mouth, and amply demonstrating just how big a threat to middle-class conservatives the Greens really are.
Why is it the rabid right are so easily triggered in NZ? Doesn't happen in Europe where the Greens have been a major political forces for ages.
Especially seeing as there is nothing fawning or wishful in this piece.
The best point of reference I have for these reactions is my physical urge to retch each time Luxon postulates what "New Zealanders understand". I bottle it, because it's a dumb gut reaction better tempered into reasoned argument.
But even the name "Chlöe" is enough to knock these sensitive skittles into tumbling over each other to virtue signal their disgust that the political spectrum may have (and need!) opposing perspectives - as it has through time immemorial. It's quite pathetic.
@ Chrisofnofame- Sounds like you and the extreme left are triggered by National, whom you believe to be far right. You are in correct as usual Chris. You parrot Labours ideology, despite over 75% of the country not voting them in.
You, along with the extreme left are the minority of NZ. We said no to your tyrannical dictatorship communism of the Ardern years. Your leader Hipkins couldn't even define what a woman is. He's not fit to govern. He lied on National TV to the public saying there were no forced vaccinations everyone made their own choices. He forced businesses to shut down, people to lose their jobs, decided families and friends, and then lied about it saying it was all your choice. The NZ public woke up, Hipkins & Ardern made the cruitual mistake of thinking everyone in NZ were extreme lefties & could be dumb enough to believe every word they say, despite Labours multiple lies caught on camera.
You take every opportunity to slander the 11 months of National, yet have not been able to bring yourself to understand or even admit the multiple historic failures under the last 6 years of Labour. You fail to understand that Nationals 11 months cannot undo 6 years of Labour failures during such a short time. Now you take every opportunity to scream out we are doomed under National, because you understand the unacceptable and idiocratic behaviors of the Labour party are well and truely over.
You Chris, along with the other extreme lefties support:
Ruining businesses & turning them into charities instead. Because you parrot the Labour mantras that profiting is bad.
That therenis no difference between a man & a woman. That both can be both at the exact time yet also simultaneously being neither.
That we can the weather by simply paying more taxes.
The prioritization of the small lycra bicycle community over vehicle transportation
The favoring of one race over another
The deliberate confusion between hate speech & a difference in opinion. Lefties want to do away with free speech all together. What they mean as free speech is only speakin on topics, ideas and points of view that they have deemed acceptable. Their very own communist Ardern labelled free speech as an act of terrorism.
Advocates for "equality" of outcomes, rather than equality of opportunity. Lefties want everyone as equally poor as them, both financially, mentally & morally.
You lefties are more concerned about Eartern countries amd wahsy going on in their countries than actually interested in solving issues that our country is facing.
You lefties actively promote devision, separation and segregation. That was prominent during the Covid years.
You lefties stand for the ultimate destruction of our country, it's morals, and everything sane. That's why your dear leader got voted out. The majority of the country doesn't want such idiocracy of the leftists and decieved labour voters. You lefties also accuse your opporsition of what you would do. It is you Chris, and your lefties buddies that are triggered by whats going on. The rest of the majority of the country are quite happy in the voting outcome and the direction that National will steer us away from.
You also wrongly assume that National is right wing. They are not. They are at best centre left. National is not left extreme enough for you & your leftist buddies, so you scream out right wing, as if that's a problem. You'd lose yourself & be triggered even further if a proper right wing government were to ever be implemented in this country. Be thankful you have National, for you woildnt be able to handle the common sense an actual right wing party.
the party of PRINCIPLE -- values and integrity -- using the Waka legislation its spent its entire life ridiculing and opposing -- its thieving MP now wants her conviction quashed so she can get another cushy job and its staffers and MP still wince at Julie Anns screeching in fear -
Wellington has become a basket case council since their influence grew -- but on 170K a year I need to sell my car to make ends meet .... Green Economics at its best --
Shame as NZ really could use a good environmental Party -- and such a party would attract many current centre and centre right voters!
Right vs Left/Green. Yawn. All the comments so far demonstrate the need for my policy of abolishing central government. #4states.
And on the drinking issue, I think you’ll all find that controlled, steady day drinking is beneficial to mental wellbeing and great success in life.
Green voters:
1. Have worthless degrees and think they should be earning more.
2. A dated view that the party has the environment at the forefront of its policies.
3. Envious of the wealthy and want to see them ‘punished’ with wealth taxes.
4. Labour voters with no where to go.
Yep. Degrees in inclusion and gender studies. About as useful in degrees studying the life of squashed hedgehogs. I bet many with these worthless degrees are losing their jobs as this nonsense is cut from the public sector and the private sector (to cut costs and increase profit).
I wonder how many Green Party voters have ever run a profitable business or employed someone? God help us if the Greens are ever in charge. They wanted to implement a 45% wealth tax on those earning 180K+. If you’re supporting a family on one income and paying a mortgage, 180K isn’t wealthy.
45% on earnings over 180k is not wealth tax. Australia has 45% on earnings over 190k and just about all European countries have a top tax rate of 45% or higher.
If you don't want to pay the tax then don't moan about our lack of infrastructure and poor health system.
What’s fair for you may not be fair for me. Rates is a classic. Regardless of my houses value my use of council resources is fixed or constant. Rates should be based on the number of people in a household. This would disadvantage poor people with many children eg Pacific peoples would be over represented. Personally I couldn’t give a F and support a poll tax. ps Have fewer kids
I take my cues from my woke mates on all things Green Party related. And in recent times, while they're not outwardly critical, their silence and reticence says it all about the Green Party's vision, competence, and general effectiveness.
On ethics and behavior in leadership, I feel qualified enough to form my own opinions though. And I feel the Greens are a clown show.
I dont understand why people bag Luxon out for being a millionaire. I admire him for it. He is a successful person, who has literally sacrificed a multi-million dollar a year job in order to dedicate himself to public service and the benefit of this country.
Compared to the previous PM who intentionally leveraged her position to make herself famous, delivered nothing of benefit to the country, and saw the job as simply the stepping stone to fame and fortune, allowing her to now make millions of dollars a year from propping up the woke speaking circuit, writing books, and selling the movie rights to her life story.
These short term politicians like Ardern are only in it for themselves and as soon as the going gets tough, they get going. The PR Princess is now back doing what she is good at - self promotion. While Luxon cleans up her mess.
Remember the scene from The Office where David Brent announces that there is going to be a round of lay offs. That's the bad news. The good news is that David's been promoted. One of the office workers pipes in: "That's not good news. It's bad news and irrelevant news." David retorts a number of different ways including saying that he should have given the good news first (David's promotion) to cheer everyone up before announcing there's going to be lay offs.
Reminds me of Ardern, Robbo, Mallard.
No no no, you just don't get it.
"I dont understand why people bag Luxon out for being a millionaire. I admire him for it. He is a successful person, who has literally sacrificed a multi-million dollar a year job in order to dedicate himself to public service and the benefit of this country."
The media narrative is that he got elected PM so he could sell a few properties after he changed the brightline test time period. This seems so much more logical doesn't it. Give up million dollar job (get paid less than half) to make a small capital gain on a property purchased years ago and pay no tax on the capital gain. If he sells a few more he will only lose about 3.5 million dollars from being PM. Sounds totally rational. If he is that dumb he should probably be in the Labour party. They have these bright ideas that lose heaps of money all the time...
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.